Page: 291↓
[
In an action by a son against his father's trustees for payment of legitim, the defenders pleaded that various sums fell to be deducted in respect of advances made by the father to the son, which they said the son was bound to repay, or at all events to collate. These mainly consisted of two sums expended in payment of a debt contracted by the son and for which the father was not liable. The pursuer averred, in answer, that the debt had been paid with his money, handed to his father for that purpose. This was denied by the defenders.—Held that, apart from evidence, where a person pays the debt of another, he is in dubio, presumed to do so with the debtor's money; and that where the two parties stand to one another in the relation of father and son, that fact is not sufficient to overturn the presumption, although in that case it cannot be held to be so strong.
Authorities referred to—Ersk. Inst. iii. 4, 6; Trotter v. Robertson, Jan. 20, 1672, M. 11, 526; Dickson on Evidence, sec. 395; Webster v. Rettie. June 4, 1859, 21 D. 915; Douglas v. Douglas, Nov. 8, 1876, 4 R. 105; Ersk. Prin. iv. 2, 19.
Counsel for Pursuer (Reclaimer)— Dean of Faculty (Fraser)—Nevay. Agent— W. N. Masterton, Solicitor.
Counsel for Defenders (Respondents)— Kinnear—R. Johnstone. Agent— T. J. Gordon, W.S.